I wonder how much the debates matter in the end. I'd guess most folks have decided long before the debates who they support, and as currently structured the debates pose little danger of changing any minds. You either already know their positions, or vote the letter behind their name.

This is about ratings. My guess is, the networks finally said, "Have all the debates you want, but we're under no obligation to show all of them." Either they "punch it up" and make the debates more watchable, or they won't get that free talking point distribution time at all.

Cat Food Sandwiches:What we have now could hardly be considered a "debate", but rather a series of two-minute talking point recitations. Just throw out a question and let them have at it for 10 minutes.

radio/tv interviews should be the same way, why are they always "almost out of time": on a 24 hour news network, wtf is that?

a_bilge_monkey:I wonder how much the debates matter in the end. I'd guess most folks have decided long before the debates who they support, and as currently structured the debates pose little danger of changing any minds. You either already know their positions, or vote the letter behind their name.

Well, there's always the chance of one of the participants letting slip an actual belief of theirs, thus cratering their political career. That can be entertaining.

How about making them go through an application process like getting into college, that way Low Intellegence debaters like Sister Sarah , and Brothers Ted and Rand will actually have to meet a low bar of competency before trying to catapult their lame assed messages.

All you need is people that'd ask real questions and not let politicians dodge them. (Read: non-American journalists). Is have paid good money to watch someone hold Mittford's feet to the fire about his tax returns, Romneycare, specifics his amazing tax plan that let him cut trillions in taxes and increase the defense budget, etc.

JoePragmatist:All you need is people that'd ask real questions and not let politicians dodge them. (Read: non-American journalists). Is have paid good money to watch someone hold Mittford's feet to the fire about his tax returns, Romneycare, specifics his amazing tax plan that let him cut trillions in taxes and increase the defense budget, etc.

Get a moderator from the BBC. The accent alone would make all the candidates sound like idiots.

give me doughnuts:JoePragmatist: All you need is people that'd ask real questions and not let politicians dodge them. (Read: non-American journalists). Is have paid good money to watch someone hold Mittford's feet to the fire about his tax returns, Romneycare, specifics his amazing tax plan that let him cut trillions in taxes and increase the defense budget, etc.

Get a moderator from the BBC. The accent alone would make all the candidates sound like idiots.

Get Clive Anderson. He already has experience in directing professional clowns to make asses of themselves on camera for popularity points that don't matter.

Cat Food Sandwiches:What we have now could hardly be considered a "debate", but rather a series of two-minute talking point recitations. Just throw out a question and let them have at it for 10 minutes.

How about we get informed moderators who ask decent follow up questions or make them answer the actual question instead of the question they want to answer

Maybe as a moderator we could get a REAL journalist from the BBC (there doesn't seem to be any left here in the U.S.) to aggressively interrupt and follow up with candidates who blatantly lie or spew talking points instead of answering the question.

It will never happen, of course.

==========================

I think televised debates are seriously overrated, anyway.

The issues we face in the modern world are complicated and nuanced. The time crunch of a debate forces everyone to speak in VASTLY oversimplified slogans such as "Cut And Run" or "No New Taxes." The candidate who tries to be at least a little bit accurate and honest is at a HUGE disadvantage when trying to explain how the other guy is full of shiat AND giving a different point of view, all in the X number of seconds provided.

That said, televised debates are not totally worthless. If done right (which is rare nowadays) a televised debate can be a good indicator of how well the candidates are educated on the issues and how well they can think under pressure.

=====================================================

I'd like to see a series of "written" debates played out over several months-- The moderator gives a question, the candidates write out essays or op ed columns in response (citing their sources) and send them back to the moderator. The moderator publishes the responses, appending a list of any falsehoods or distortions. Then the candidates respond to each other's articles, and the cycle continues for several more rounds.

Of course, that would require reading, and thinking, and well, this IS America...

I've never seen a presidential debate. I've seen the things where they stand at podiums and recite scripted responses to questions they were given in advance, and then the country goes insane for the next few hours trying to declare who "won".

Hobodeluxe:how about we have them wired up to lie detectors and voice stress analyzers with visible results on screen? also it should give them a good electrical shock when they lie or dodge the question.

Ineffective. Being a career politician makes you psychopathic enough that you can easily beat a lie detector. Hooking up someone like Romney to that machine would just create pages and pages of a perfectly straight line.

First off, wow! Newton minnow is still alive. He must be a hundred years old by now.

Regarding debates, now about no moderator? These are supposed to be intelligent people. Let 'em argue free form. Even if they spend the entire time going back and forth about a single issue, it would be more beneficial than canned answers to obvious softball questions.

I have no problem with 2-minute answers as long as the question is structured in such a way that it can be answered in that time. Also, cut off their mic after the 2 minutes and any time they say, "I'd like to go back to something the other candidate said...".

Also change the setting to something like having them sit at a semi-circular table with the moderator in the center, and get rid of the crowd. Standing at a lectern in front of a crowd automatically puts them in campaign speech mode no matter how hard they might try to avoid it, so take them out of that setting. Also keep all of them on screen at all times (with TVs being 16:9 now it shouldn't be a problem) so we can see how they behave when they're not the center of attention.

Turn the debates into a drinking contest for the candidates. For answer that stays on point and actually addresses the question, everyone else has to take a shot. If the answer turns into a talking point, the candidate has to take a shot.

Open Forum. No scripted questions. Audience composition should be as follows:

15% University Professors15% Large business Leaders (Determined by annual revenue, not by # of employees)10% Stay-at-home parents or single parents10% Church Leaders10% Kids between 6th and 12th grade10% Union Leaders10% Small Business owners (Determined by annual revenue, NOT by # of employees)10% Primary and/or secondary school teachersand 10% some drunk hobos they round up from under bridges (just for the comedy factor)

And prior to gaining a seat at the table, they have to pass a verbal test about basic math, science and history, to prove they're not as dumb as Palin or Ryan.

odinsposse:Hobodeluxe: how about we have them wired up to lie detectors and voice stress analyzers with visible results on screen? also it should give them a good electrical shock when they lie or dodge the question.

Ineffective. Being a career politician makes you psychopathic enough that you can easily beat a lie detector. Hooking up someone like Romney to that machine would just create pages and pages of a perfectly straight line.

the threat of electric shock should make that trickier. they're not used to instant consequence.